2006

Norfolk Redevelopment & Hous. Auth. v. C & C Real Estate, Inc.

Supreme Court of Virginia

272 Va. 2, 630 S.E.2d 505

C&C purchased a lot in 1997 and leased it to a company that operated an automobile salvage yard. In 1988, Norfolk City Council adopted a conservation plan recommended by the Housing Authority to rehabilitate blighted or deteriorating areas. The parcel C&C bought was on the plan’s land acquisition map as property to be acquired for adding to the blighted condition of the district. The plan allowed the Housing Authority to acquire property by use of eminent domain. In December 1999, the Housing Authority notified C&C of its intent to acquire the property. After over four years of unsuccessful attempts to buy the lot, the Housing Authority filed a condemnation petition in November 2003. Trial court dismissed the petition because: (1) due process concerns arose due to the fifteen-year delay; (2) the finding of blight under the plan was invalid; and, (3) C&C never received the one-year notice to correct deficiencies as required by the plan. Supreme Court held that when many years pass between an original finding of blight but before the property is acquired, the current condition must also be considered when determining if the original purpose of the acquisition remains viable at the time of condemnation. The burden is on the landowner to show by clear and convincing evidence that the property is no longer a blight or exerting a blighting influence. C&C was unable to rebut the presumption that the Housing Authority’s designation as blighted remained valid. Further, C&C had been given notice and an opportunity to be heard. The fifteen-year delay did not violate any statutory limitations period for acquiring property under a conservation plan. The Housing Authority’s actions did not give rise to a federal or state due process claim. However, paragraph 1 of the plan’s acquisition section has broader language than Va. Code §36-50.1(4) (appear infeasible of rehabilitation as opposed to are infeasible of rehabilitation), and as the plan had broader language than the statute, it could not be used as a basis for the exercise of eminent domain. Court also noted that Va. Code § 36-49.2 did not bar Housing Authority from using eminent domain to redevelop property in the conservation plan area for industrial use. Judgment affirmed.

For the trial court opinion which reached the same conclusion, see Norfolk Redevelopment & Hous. Auth. v. C & C Real Estate, Inc., 67 Va. Cir. 258 (2005)

Back to Case Finder Main Page
Volume One Indexes:
To Case Name Index
To Topic Index
To Date Index
To Code Section Index